In Revelation 3:16-17, Jesus chastised the lukewarm Christians in Laodicea, saying that they were spiritually “wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked.” In verse 18, He admonished them, saying, “I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed.” The Laodiceans were not literally naked; Jesus here is speaking metaphorically of their spiritual condition. However, He is drawing upon physical imagery that these Christians would have understood. Even these worldly Laodiceans would’ve understood that it’s shameful and embarrassing to be naked in the public’s eye. God affirms that there ought to be shame and embarrassment associated with being publically naked.
Consider also that in 1 Corinthians 12:23, as Paul uses the physical body to describe the body of Christ (the church), he makes reference to “unpresentable parts.” In addition to eyes and ears, the physical body contains certain parts that are unpresentable.
What body parts do you consider unpresentable? And how would you define nakedness? The fact is, we might all answer these questions differently. But here’s the real question: does God define these things for us?
Admittedly, there is no one passage in the New Testament that defines which body parts are unpresentable. However, the Old Testament, though not our law anymore, was written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). If the New Testament teaches a concept and the Old Testament defines or fleshes out that concept, it seems to me that we ought to do the research and consider the conclusion. After all, the Bible was written directly to Christians in the first century and so we must strive to understand it as they would've understood it. When John, for example, penned the book of Revelation, he predicated so much of the book's symbolism on imagery from the Old Testament. The seven churches in Asia, when reminded of the "shame of nakedness" would have understood what Christ meant by this, and their knowledge of this concept would have been based in the Old Testament.
What body parts do you consider unpresentable? And how would you define nakedness? The fact is, we might all answer these questions differently. But here’s the real question: does God define these things for us?
Admittedly, there is no one passage in the New Testament that defines which body parts are unpresentable. However, the Old Testament, though not our law anymore, was written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). If the New Testament teaches a concept and the Old Testament defines or fleshes out that concept, it seems to me that we ought to do the research and consider the conclusion. After all, the Bible was written directly to Christians in the first century and so we must strive to understand it as they would've understood it. When John, for example, penned the book of Revelation, he predicated so much of the book's symbolism on imagery from the Old Testament. The seven churches in Asia, when reminded of the "shame of nakedness" would have understood what Christ meant by this, and their knowledge of this concept would have been based in the Old Testament.
The fact is, we learn from a thorough study of the Old Testament that one can be clothed and still be considered naked by God. One can have some clothing on and yet fail to conceal their “unpresentable parts.” Consider these texts with me.
In Genesis 2:25, we learn that Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. However, after they sinned, they became aware of their nakedness and tried to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). They put on “aprons” (KJV) or “loincloths” (ESV). The Hebrew word is chagor and literally refers to a belt for the waist, and so I think it’s safe to assume that Adam and Eve clothed themselves with loincloths. Did this make them sufficiently covered or clothed? Many would say “Yes!” But God further clothed them in Genesis 3:20-21 with “tunics of skin” or “coats.” Based on Hebrew culture and the meaning of the Hebrew word kethoneth, these were tunics “worn next to the skin by men and women chiefly of the priest and Levites, generally with sleeves, to the knees, but seldom to the ankles” (Wilson, pg. 81). Nelson’s Illustrated Encyclopedia adds that this was “a kimono-like inner garment reaching to the knees or ankles.” And so God clothed Adam and Eve with a garment that covered the area between their knees and shoulders. This most definitely concealed their nakedness!
Some might argue that God wasn't clothing them to cover their nakedness, and that this had nothing to do with the inadequacy of their loincloths...that this was purely symbolic in that the coats of animal skin hearkened back to the sacrifice that was made by God for their sin. Even if you take that position, you cannot escape the fact that when God clothed them, it was with a garment that reached from their shoulders to about their knees (maybe longer).
In Genesis 2:25, we learn that Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. However, after they sinned, they became aware of their nakedness and tried to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). They put on “aprons” (KJV) or “loincloths” (ESV). The Hebrew word is chagor and literally refers to a belt for the waist, and so I think it’s safe to assume that Adam and Eve clothed themselves with loincloths. Did this make them sufficiently covered or clothed? Many would say “Yes!” But God further clothed them in Genesis 3:20-21 with “tunics of skin” or “coats.” Based on Hebrew culture and the meaning of the Hebrew word kethoneth, these were tunics “worn next to the skin by men and women chiefly of the priest and Levites, generally with sleeves, to the knees, but seldom to the ankles” (Wilson, pg. 81). Nelson’s Illustrated Encyclopedia adds that this was “a kimono-like inner garment reaching to the knees or ankles.” And so God clothed Adam and Eve with a garment that covered the area between their knees and shoulders. This most definitely concealed their nakedness!
Some might argue that God wasn't clothing them to cover their nakedness, and that this had nothing to do with the inadequacy of their loincloths...that this was purely symbolic in that the coats of animal skin hearkened back to the sacrifice that was made by God for their sin. Even if you take that position, you cannot escape the fact that when God clothed them, it was with a garment that reached from their shoulders to about their knees (maybe longer).
We see something similar in Exodus 28:40-42 regarding God’s standard for the priests. Verse 40 reveals that the priests were to wear loose-fitting outer garments. We know that this would have been a priestly robe that would’ve reached at least to the knees. However, in verse 42, we read the following: “And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from their waist to their thighs.” Keep in mind that they were already to wear an outer garment that would have sufficiently covered their nakedness. But due to the fact that they were sometimes working on the altar above the people, they were to wear something underneath their robe to ensure that their nakedness ALWAYS be hidden from the eyes below. So not only were these priests covering their nakedness at all times, they were even expected to take extra precautions to ensure that it wasn't accidentally exposed.
We learn in Isaiah 47:2-3 that yet again, God viewed the thighs as being a part of what constitutes nakedness. Uncovering one's thighs was considered shameful.
Finally, Exodus 28:42 makes it clear that it’s shameful for one’s buttocks to be exposed. And Proverbs 5:19 is just one of many passages that describe a woman’s breasts as sexual stimulants for men. These are body parts that will naturally be covered if one is totally concealing their nakedness anyways (from shoulders to knees), but women especially, with this information in mind, might take extra precaution when it comes to their breasts (excuse the frankness).
Perhaps you’re thinking that it’s a stretch to tie all of these verses together to prove a point and that such a conclusion cannot possibly be bound upon others in some kind of legalistic manner. I understand that reaction, but again, here’s what I know:
We learn in Isaiah 47:2-3 that yet again, God viewed the thighs as being a part of what constitutes nakedness. Uncovering one's thighs was considered shameful.
Finally, Exodus 28:42 makes it clear that it’s shameful for one’s buttocks to be exposed. And Proverbs 5:19 is just one of many passages that describe a woman’s breasts as sexual stimulants for men. These are body parts that will naturally be covered if one is totally concealing their nakedness anyways (from shoulders to knees), but women especially, with this information in mind, might take extra precaution when it comes to their breasts (excuse the frankness).
Perhaps you’re thinking that it’s a stretch to tie all of these verses together to prove a point and that such a conclusion cannot possibly be bound upon others in some kind of legalistic manner. I understand that reaction, but again, here’s what I know:
- In the New Testament, God does allude to the “shame of nakedness” and to certain parts of the body that are “unpresentable." Are we left to define these for ourselves or is there wisdom in seeing how God defines these terms?
- There is a consistent standard throughout the Old Testament regarding what God considered to be our “unpresentable parts” and our “nakedness.” Whenever God clothed anyone or gave instructions regarding clothing, He covered the area between the shoulders and knees. This is confirmed by the text, by the definitions of certain Hebrew terms, and by known facts of Hebrew culture. This is how the Jews and Christians of old would've understood the language.
- Our own common sense actually confirms this data. We know that there is a difference between a man taking off his socks and his shirt (in public). We know that a woman would feel uncomfortable and exposed if seen in her bra and panties. If someone of the opposite sex shakes a person’s hand, no big deal…but if they touch a person’s thigh or rear end or chest…now an “advance” is being made.
Women, you may not feel uncomfortable wearing a bikini or even a one-piece bathing suit that wraps tightly around your crotch. Guys, you may not feel uncomfortable mowing the grass with your shirt off. Because of your upbringing or experiences, you may be calloused to any sense of shame in this regard. Even still, shouldn’t we all strive to live by God’s standards? And shouldn’t we seek to regain shame where God says there should be shame? It can be done.
And is it difficult, ladies, to find shorts, skirts and dresses that are long enough? I'm not a woman, but from what I understand, yes, it is difficult. But not impossible. When I am with my wife in a store like Kohls or Target, we DO stumble upon dresses and such that ARE long enough. Maybe you'll have to look a little harder, and maybe you'll have to pass up a dress or skirt that is "really cute" and fashionable, but our Lord is certainly worthy of such sacrifices. It's about priorities!
Instead of looking at this as some legalistic article by a prudish preacher, consider these things with an open heart and seek to apply wisdom here as in all other areas of faith. Ask yourself if I’ve set forth my own standard in this article or if I’ve set forth a biblical standard. And then make the necessary adjustments in your own life, not because I’m telling you to, but because you desire to reflect the will of God in your own life.
And is it difficult, ladies, to find shorts, skirts and dresses that are long enough? I'm not a woman, but from what I understand, yes, it is difficult. But not impossible. When I am with my wife in a store like Kohls or Target, we DO stumble upon dresses and such that ARE long enough. Maybe you'll have to look a little harder, and maybe you'll have to pass up a dress or skirt that is "really cute" and fashionable, but our Lord is certainly worthy of such sacrifices. It's about priorities!
Instead of looking at this as some legalistic article by a prudish preacher, consider these things with an open heart and seek to apply wisdom here as in all other areas of faith. Ask yourself if I’ve set forth my own standard in this article or if I’ve set forth a biblical standard. And then make the necessary adjustments in your own life, not because I’m telling you to, but because you desire to reflect the will of God in your own life.
No comments:
Post a Comment